This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the

order dated August 6, 2018 in O.S. No.181/2016 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur rejecting the

plaint in the suit for declaration.

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred

as per their status before the Trial Court.

4

3.

Heard Shri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Advocate for

the appellants/plaintiffs and Shri. Madhusudhan Rao, learned

Advocate for the respondents/defendants.

4.

Plaintiffs have filed the instant suit seeking

declaration that:

 plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 5 are the title-

holders of schedule ‘A’ of suit property;

 schedule ‘B’ property belongs to the Government;

and

 the Gift Deed dated 25.01.1973 as not binding on

plaintiffs.

5.

Brief facts of the case are, first plaintiff’s husband

Hanumaiah had purchased schedule A property. One

Ashwanthnarayana had purchased schedule B property. Both

Hanumaiah and Ashwanthnarayana gifted their respective

properties in favour of Venkatamramaiah (defendant No.1)

to utilise the income derived from the properties for

Shri. Anjaneya Swamy and Shri. Ramalingeshwara Swamy

Temples.

5

6.

Venkatamramaiah applied for grant of occupancy

rights in respect of both schedule A and B properties and it

was granted. Hanumaiah lost his challenge to the grant order

made by Land Tribunal in both the W.P.No.31834/1995 and

the Writ Appeal filed thereon.

7.

After Hanumaiah’s death, his wife and daughters

have brought the instant suit with above prayers.

8.

Venkatamramaiah has filed I.A. No. VII under Order

7 Rule 11(A) and (D) of the CPC seeking rejection of the

plaint on the ground that the lands were granted to him by

the State Government.

9.

The I.A. was resisted by plaintiffs contending inter

alia that Hanumaiah and Ashwathnarayana had gifted the

property to Venkatamramaiah to take care of the temples but

he has claimed the occupancy rights suppressing the gift. The

gift deed was executed with a condition that Venkataramaiah

should utilize the income derived from the lands for the

6

maintanence of temples. Venkatramaiah did not adhere to the

same.

10.

The learned Trial Judge has framed a solitary point

for his consideration and rejected the plaint.

11. Shri. Haranahalli, for the plaintiffs, praying to allow

this appeal and to set-aside the impugned order, submitted

that:

 the

Trial

Court

failed

to

notice

that

Venkatamramaiah has obtained the occupancy

rights by suppressing the fact that the lands were

gifted in his favour;

 the learned Trial Judge has failed to notice that

rendering service and taking care of the temples

was the sole purpose of the gift. In fragrant

violation

of

Hanumaiah’s

wishes

Venkatamramaiah has usurped the lands for his

own benefit;

7

 the question of limitation is a mixed question of

law and fact;

 the above aspects can be decided by farming

issues and after a full dressed trial.

12.

Opposing the appeal, Shri. Madhusudan, arguing in

support of the impugned order mainly submitted that:

 the suit is barred by limitation. The Gift deed was

executed in the year 1973, and the suit

challenging the same has been filed in 2016;

 the suit is also barred under Section 132 of the

Land Reforms Act;

 the order of grant in favour of Venkataramaiah by

the Land Tribunal has attained finality.

13.

Smt. Shreedevi learned Advocate for Axis Bank

(defendant No.6) submitted that schedule ‘A’ property has

been mortgaged to the bank.

14.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions

and perused the records.

8

15. Based on material on record and the submissions

made by the learned Advocates the point which arises for our

consideration is whether the impugned order calls for any

interference?

16.

Undisputed facts of the case are, Hanumaiah and

Ashwathnarayana gifted two pieces of properties in favour of

Venkataramaiah. Plaintiffs’ case is that the purpose of the gift

was to render service